Video = no video ( tape destroyed by mold )
Audio = not yet
Audio Download = DOWNLOAD Jan Cox Talk 0240 from Cassette
AKS/News Items = 
Summary = See Below
Diagrams = None
Transcript = None

Summary by TK

Tape240,  Dec 23, 1986,runtime 1:47

Language approach vs. particle physics approach in J's presentation of This thing. There are two types of people attracted to This Thing, those who wish to feel better and those who in addition want a stimulating explanation -understanding of man. There are certain limitations to language that make it almost impossible to express a comprehensive statement (sentence) about humanity that is not in its basis accusatory, without criticism. The limitations of language are frightening to contemplate; it casts an absolute mold, structure to everything; is always imputing, giving attributes. The three elements of a non-accusatory language are: it must be unconditional, non-negative and non-sequential. This is impossible in ordinary language. Neuralizing is an escape from the mental/rhetorical (verbal) gravity of ordinary language. Thought = rhetoric; the way you talk = the way you think. It is impossible to get outside this fact. E.g., you cannot think in exactly the same way in an acquired language as in your native language. To simply say "all is fine" will not satisfy either group attracted to This thing; will not make them feel better or offer a stimulating explanation. No friction/heat of criticism is present in the statement to effect a transfer of energy capable of real alteration of the biochemical mechanical status quo. The Few should not need to hear anymore the accusational; should have the possibility to be free of language. Consider: how could Life talk thru men outside of ordinary language? When you see your captivity in the web of language and The Partnership, it will frighten you to death and uproariously amuse simultaneously.]
  [Different religions are distinctly of E or C type as related to E/C gate. (E/C Gate= Exciting/Calming) Exciting or calming religions. Consider why are there 2 types, rather than just one? Why is it even possible to SEE that there are two? Consider what has stuck in man's memory/history: E type transfers. Consider the roll of The Few and the ultimate satisfaction for them in the transfer of the heat of This thing to a new audience. ]
  [You should find it very curious that you can only hear the accusatory. The Few must be able to operate outside this. ]
  [1:37 Epilog -Comments to tape viewers re:attendance et al.